News Trump: Mar-a-Lago just raided by FBI

Page 176 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,390
16,790
136
My understanding is that a very tough case to make. Obstruction of Justice is a pretty open and shut case.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,048
14,455
146
I don't know about youi guys but it seems to me that boasting about state defense secrets being sold to or offered as extortion/narcicistic bragging fodder seems like a pretty big crime, doesn't it?

what do you guys think? Espionage Act--specifically for state security--applies here more than it has ever applied anywhere, and without question--so I think that's a pretty big deal, no?

I wonder if our resident shitclowns will be able to explain this one away....like, "see, it has to be FOR MONEY and you can't prove that he just didn't want to brag about it! because that's like, a law I just invented. SEE! so not really that big of a deal because the INTENT behind willfully compromising the security of our homeland more than it has ever been done before--matters the most!"

I fucking guarantee you we are going to get shit like that. I also know from which mouths it will come, lol.

You completely miss the part that Trump believed/still believes that as president, he, and ONLY he, had the right/ability to declassify documents simply by thinking they're declassified...and he has the right to do with them what he chooses.
Attempting to prosecute him for this is just more librul witch hunt bs.
 

rommelrommel

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2002
4,426
3,209
146
You completely miss the part that Trump believed/still believes that as president, he, and ONLY he, had the right/ability to declassify documents simply by thinking they're declassified...and he has the right to do with them what he chooses.
Attempting to prosecute him for this is just more librul witch hunt bs.

But it seems that they have him on tape admitting that he knows that isn’t true, suggesting he only tells that story to the rubes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,162
136
But it seems that they have him on tape admitting that he knows that isn’t true, suggesting he only tells that story to the rubes.

THEY? You mean the news media? Fat chance...
I can't stand Donald Trump, but aren't we tired of the news media feeding this BS 24/7 predicting the demise of Donald Trump? Or Biden? Or any of the others?
They've been pulling this crap for years now, the media, I think it time we remove the three major news networks from our channels list. We're never going to get actual news from any of these guys. Only advertising and ratings wars.
Those bastards....
 

rommelrommel

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2002
4,426
3,209
146
THEY? You mean the news media? Fat chance...
I can't stand Donald Trump, but aren't we tired of the news media feeding this BS 24/7 predicting the demise of Donald Trump? Or Biden? Or any of the others?
They've been pulling this crap for years now, the media, I think it time we remove the three major news networks from our channels list. We're never going to get actual news from any of these guys. Only advertising and ratings wars.
Those bastards....
I mean Jack Smith and DOJ.

I understand not having much faith, but complicated investigations take time and I do believe that DOJ is going to fucking bury Trump in the coming year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,162
136
PS...
And THIS just in from CNN
WTF? WHY? Why try to scare the pubic just to get a mouse click?
Is it because.... YOU CAN?

Screenshot 2023-06-01 at 11.58.31 PM.jpg
There is nothing to be warned about. If Macy's is having a problem maybe it's because they sell crap? Crap that no one is buying? And Costco? Maybe shoppers realized it's not worth paying membership fee just to over pay for outdated electronics? Or a box of 50 bananas? Who needs 50 bananas?
 
Last edited:

QueBert

Lifer
Jan 6, 2002
22,946
1,138
126
Yet the people who voted for him would claim, "I didn't know he couldn't be trusted"

Would make a good poll question.

Assessment of Trump trustworthiness in 2016?

I knew he couldn't be trusted.
I thought he could be trusted.
I knew he couldn't be trusted but didn't care. At least not a Dem

3 words
Hunter
Bidens
Laptop!


And a lot of his die-hard cult followers will swear on their life he had the power to declassify all the documents so it was totally legal to have them in his office at Mar-A-Lago. And for most of them, there's no amount of evidence that could possibly make them think any differently. And for the ones who do actually see the light about him, refer back to the 3 words. Regardless how bad this ends for him, his core supporters will still trust him with all of their heart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,613
11,255
136
Yes I get it, your point is what is taking so long. But you’re not going to immediately charge a former president and slowly drip, drip, drip and add charges during the investigation. Jack smith is going to drop a bomb when its fully done.
At this rate the 2024 election week be over well before this trial. At some point you've got to charge the piece of shit.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
38,876
31,968
136
3 words
Hunter
Bidens
Laptop!


And a lot of his die-hard cult followers will swear on their life he had the power to declassify all the documents so it was totally legal to have them in his office at Mar-A-Lago. And for most of them, there's no amount of evidence that could possibly make them think any differently. And for the ones who do actually see the light about him, refer back to the 3 words. Regardless how bad this ends for him, his core supporters will still trust him with all of their heart.
But now we have a recording of Trump not only admitting he had classified documents, but they are also a danger to national security (plans to attack Iran) and he wanted to show them to others. I think I will do that trust poll.
 

you2

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2002
6,781
1,819
136
But now we have a recording of Trump not only admitting he had classified documents, but they are also a danger to national security (plans to attack Iran) and he wanted to show them to others. I think I will do that trust poll.
Republican simple answer it is 'fake' news until proven in court and then it was a kangaroo court. They simply cannot allow facts to dissuade their power structure. At least those not ignorant backwoods folks knew Trump was highly unfit for office but refused to take action time and time again. I mean what are a few 'secret' documents compared to Jan 6 attempt to overthrow the election?
 
  • Like
Reactions: amenx

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,041
136
I mean Jack Smith and DOJ.

I understand not having much faith, but complicated investigations take time and I do believe that DOJ is going to fucking bury Trump in the coming year.
Indicated yes, but the trial won’t start for a couple of years at least. And will we see any REAL punishment...doubtful.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,737
54,755
136
Indicated yes, but the trial won’t start for a couple of years at least. And will we see any REAL punishment...doubtful.
It depends. If a Republican wins in 2024 they will definitely pardon him for this. If a Republican doesn't win in 2024 Trump is going to see serious prison time unless he dies first. If a Republican other than Trump wins in 2024 he's still got a pretty solid shot at prison time in Georgia or potentially New York.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
38,876
31,968
136
It depends. If a Republican wins in 2024 they will definitely pardon him for this. If a Republican doesn't win in 2024 Trump is going to see serious prison time unless he dies first. If a Republican other than Trump wins in 2024 he's still got a pretty solid shot at prison time in Georgia or potentially New York.
Wonder if Republicans or Democrats will run on a possible pardon for Trump?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

you2

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2002
6,781
1,819
136
Pence documents case officially closed and found no wrong doing
As it should be and i would expect the same for Biden's document case. The difference between these two cases and Trump is somewhat obvious; it isn't the duration they had the documents but how they resisted returning documents et all. Remember both Pence and Biden reported they had the documents - they were not documents discovered to be missing and asked to return.

I really wish the political discourse would stick to the facts and stop trying to inflame people with bullshit (I'm talking about the folks in washington sprouting lies to anger their base).
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,737
54,755
136
As it should be and i would expect the same for Biden's document case. The difference between these two cases and Trump is somewhat obvious; it isn't the duration they had the documents but how they resisted returning documents et all. Remember both Pence and Biden reported they had the documents - they were not documents discovered to be missing and asked to return.

I really wish the political discourse would stick to the facts and stop trying to inflame people with bullshit (I'm talking about the folks in washington sprouting lies to anger their base).
Sadly this is a deliberate and scummy attempt to muddy the waters. I guarantee you when Trump is indicted for this their overwhelming refrain will be 'but Biden had documents too'. It's simple, easy to understand, and easy to repeat.

That being said there is an easy response I hope people use - 'Trump is not in trouble for documents, he's in trouble for stealing them and lying about it'.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
25,764
12,081
136
You completely miss the part that Trump believed/still believes that as president, he, and ONLY he, had the right/ability to declassify documents simply by thinking they're declassified...and he has the right to do with them what he chooses.
Attempting to prosecute him for this is just more librul witch hunt bs.
Ignorance of the law has NEVER been an excuse.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,026
2,879
136
Ignorance of the law has NEVER been an excuse.

Kind of. Most crimes are not strict liability. You don't need to know you are doing something illegal, but you may need to have a state of mind (intent or neglect) sufficient for an act to be criminal. Some crimes require explicit intent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,242
14,240
136
Kind of. Most crimes are not strict liability. You don't need to know you are doing something illegal, but you may need to have a state of mind (intent or neglect) sufficient for an act to be criminal. Some crimes require explicit intent.

Right, intent goes to conduct, with or without knowledge of its legality. Yet occasionally ignorance of the law is held as a legal excuse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,737
54,755
136
Unless you're Don Jr. and the prosecuter is Mueller? Recall that Mueller said there were technical violations of election law in relation to Don Jr's Trump Tower meeting but that Jr. couldn't be expected to understand them?
I will always remember Popehat's answer to this. If you're wondering what the laws are where ignorance of the law IS an excuse just envision the type of crimes that rich white dudes in suits are most likely to commit. That pretty much covers it.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,242
14,240
136
I will always remember Popehat's answer to this. If you're wondering what the laws are where ignorance of the law IS an excuse just envision the type of crimes that rich white dudes in suits are most likely to commit. That pretty much covers it.

Yeah I wouldn't disagree with that. Because those laws can be more complicated than most criminal laws. Which of course is also highly convenient. Especially when a prosecutor decides that your access to numerous lawyers paid for by a presidential campaign is insufficient to cure your ignorance. Which makes you wonder who if anyone such laws could ever be applied to. People who are themselves experts on election law?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,737
54,755
136
Yeah I wouldn't disagree with that. Because those laws can be more complicated than most criminal laws. Which of course is also highly convenient. Especially when a prosecutor decides that your access to numerous lawyers paid for by a presidential campaign is insufficient to cure your ignorance. Which makes you wonder who if anyone such laws could ever be applied to. People who are themselves experts on election law?
As far as I can tell in the US most laws that apply to politicians and elections no longer exist. SCOTUS has essentially legalized bribery for sitting politicians, gotten rid of most campaign finance law, and what remains either can't be enforced as per your example or the FEC declines to enforce because it's a partisan organization.